CLMY and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to revoke the applicant's appointment as a correspondence nominee for his child. The applicant and the other party, the child's mother, were separated parents with equal shared parental responsibility for their child, with the applicant having care for 43% of the time and the other party for 57%. The applicant had initially applied to be a correspondence nominee, while the other party applied to be both a payment and correspondence nominee. Following inquiries, a social worker recommended that the other party be appointed as both payment and correspondence nominee, a decision affirmed by the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The applicant sought review of the revocation of his appointment as correspondence nominee.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had been properly notified of the revocation of his appointment as correspondence nominee, and whether the Tribunal could consider appointing the applicant as a payment nominee despite his initial failure to apply for such a role. The Tribunal was required to determine the best interests of the child in relation to the appointment of nominees, considering the relevant provisions of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) and the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had not received written notice of the revocation of his appointment as correspondence nominee, as required by section 123E(9) of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth) when an appointment is revoked under section 123E, this requirement did not strictly apply when the revocation was made under the *Acts Interpretation Act 1901* (Cth). However, the Tribunal considered it good administration and fair for the applicant to have been informed in writing. Despite this procedural concern, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that it was in the child's best interests for the other party, as the primary carer with a higher percentage of care, to control the finances for the child's purposes. The Tribunal also determined that it could consider the applicant's suitability as a payment nominee in the merits review, even though he had not initially applied for that role.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.